Re: Consonent Clusters at the End of Words Rob Zook Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:18:58 -0600 At 12:34 PM 11/13/97 -0600, you wrote: >From: Rob Zook >Date: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 4:42 PM > >> At 02:53 PM 11/12/97 -0600, Saul wrote: >> > >> >a palatal fricative. Also, since Vulcan doesn't otherwise have a >> >dental fricative, we'd probably end up with a phonetic realization of >> >[ds] for /dth/. >> >> Hmmm. Actually I was thinking of the opposite, a phonemic /dth/ but >> realized as the [dth] where the was the fricative. > >That doesn't sound opposite. Your proposed rule transforms aspirates to >fricatives when following a voiced stop at the same place of >articulation. Since Vulcan otherwise has no dental fricative, but does >have an alveolar fricative nearby, it is likely that the latter would be >substituted. Hmmm..,I guess I'm not saying this clearly. I meant that at the end of a word a consonent cluster of dt could exist, but only when the final stop mutates to it's fricative. So I was saying bp would be realized as bf gk would be realized as gch (the velar fricative), and dt as dth (the dental fricative). Only that does not seem consistant. Since I was thinking only the degree of closure would change going from t -> th, but the place of articulation changes as well. So I just dropped the idea and said lets say the correct transliteration of kaiidth is kai'id'th. We could say those clusters could work if the final stop just mutates to it's frictive with no change in the place of articulation: bp -> bwh dt -> ds gk -> gch (again the velar fricative) But that would not help us explain away dth ;-) >> >k -> x is the same relationship, though. As is p -> wh. Oh, wait. >> >Do you mean the aspirate or the fricative th? >> >> I mean the fricative. For example the IPA chart shows no dental >> stops, and t is a voiceless alveolar stop. > >That's a somewhat ambiguous part of the chart. There are dental, >alveolar, and postalveolar stops, all of which are typically >represented by , , . This works because it is rare for a >language to have separate stop phonemes in each of these places. When a >language does, there are diacritics to distinguish them. Ok, but when we use the t here we mean the alveolar stop, right? So going from t (alveolar stop) -> th (dental fricative) the place of articulation and the degree of closure changes. I was only wanting a rule to change stop to fricative with no change in the place of articulation - basically I got really confused about all the relationships. >> So with t -> th not only does the >> amount of closure change as in p -> f, and k -> ch, but the point >> of articulation changes as well, because th as realized in English is >> a dental fricative not a alveolar fricative. > >Technically, the point of articulation is changing in each of your >examples -- except for t -> th, which might or might not. I was confused about p -> f so yeah, but with k -> ch, I mean k ( the voiceless velar stop) -> ch ( the voiceless velar fricative ), so how is the place of articulation changing? >> >> appears in k'wawl, and in this case the aw could be some >> >>kind of vowel dipthong maybe /ao/? If not, perhaps you can have an >> >>[approximate]+[lateral] at the end of a word: yl wl. >> > >> >It winds up being much the same thing. I tend to restrict >> >approximates to occuring before vowels, but that's just me. >> >> Well, lets look at an English example, "bowl". In that case not >> only do you have a diphthong, but in the dialect I speak you have an >> ending [wl] sound. > >Fascinating. I'd probably have to hear you talk to know >what you mean. Hmm..,I can see how it would be pronounced as bow-*l, or boh wel, too. But when I watch/listen to myself say it I hear bo-oo-wl but not quite that cleanly, as the o-oo gets mushed together - probably a personal dialect thing. >> >>Or if /w/ >> >>does indeed represent a voiced bilabial fricative as Saul >> >>suggests it could mean you can have [fricative]+[labial] at the end of a >> >>word: fl vl sl zl cl jl xl hl. >> > >> >Or we could change _this_ w to u. But the clusters above would be >> >OK as well. We could expand it to fricative+approximant. French- >> >flavored with l, Russian-flavored with y. They wouldn't phonetically >> >be clusters, probably, but lateralized and palatalized consonants. >> >> Hmmm. Maybe you can explain the difference? > >Well, if you listen to the right sort of native French speaker say the >word "table," they can do it in one syllable. The final sound is a [b] >but as they release it, if not before, they get their tongue into an [l] >position. >Russian has a semi-letter, whose name I've forgotten (myakiznak?) which >palatalizes the preceding consonant. Basically, you make the usual sound >represented by the preceding consonant, but you push the middle of your >tongue up towards the roof of your mouth as you do so, lending the >consonant an accompanying "sh" sort of sound. I think I see what your getting at. Lateralize or palatalize fricatives at the end of a word, or after certain vowels maybe? >> >>khp khb kht khd khk khg khq >> >>th thb tht thd thk thg thq >> >>dh dhb dht dhd dhk dhg dhq >> >> >> >>I kind of like these simply because of their exoticness. That >> >>could give us words like qyoodhk or kakhg which look nice and tricky to >> >>pronounce ;-) >> > >> >That almost makes it look like h is a voiceless form of <'>. >> >> Similar. I think /h/ is a voiceless glottal fricative. > >Yes. And if I'm right, <'> between two consonants, neither of which can >be made syllabic, is pronounced as a minimal vowel -- which is a sort of >voiced [h]. <'> would really have to have some kind of vowel component, wouldn't it? So a word like t'khut would probably sound like [t^' khut]. Where the [^] would have a really short beginning sound that would cut off suddenly in the stop. Rob Z. -------------------------------------------------------- Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. -- Bertrand Russell